Đề tài To know another’s language and not his culture is a very good way to make a fluent fool of one’s self

PART A: INTRODUCTION Rationale With the trend of globalization and integration, cross-border contacts appear more and more frequent. However, differences among cultures are one of the biggest barriers for successful cross-cultural communication. It is widely accepted that English has been an international language in the world. In Vietnam, for the past few decades, we have witnessed a dramatic change in English teaching and learning. Communicative approach plays a key role in that big change. That is to say, language in use is paid more attention and becomes a core in language teaching and learning for learners’ benefit. Language is part of a culture and also its reflection. Therefore, teaching a language means teaching its culture. It is obvious that learners cannot master a language without grasping its culture. In England, when greeting someone, people tend to use two questions: health questions (How are you? How are you doing?) and work questions (How are things?) as greeting routines while the Vietnamese ask food questions (what do you have today?), display questions (Are you reading books?) besides health and work questions. Or at the first meeting, the Vietnamese often ask about others’ age, marital status or income which can be seen as DON’Ts to Western people. If it is not observed with the understanding of Vietnamese culture – a positive politeness oriented culture, it is easily misinterpreted as curious and nosy behavior, thus threatening others’ faces. According to Lado (1957), to be successful in another language learning and to communicate effectively, linguistics knowledge is not enough. Besides that, interacting skills and cultural knowledge are required. As a result, to raise learners’ awareness of cross-cultural differences is essential to avoid culture shock or communication breakdown. As Brembeck rightly puts it, “To know another’s language and not his culture is a very good way to make a fluent fool of one’s self”. Aims of the study The aims of study are: To find out safe and unsafe topics for the first encounter in Vietnamese and Anglophone cultures. To examine politeness strategies employed by Vietnamese and Anglophone informants under the influence of age, gender and power. To point out cross-cultural similarities and differences. Methodology Quantitative method is mainly exploited for the practical aspects of the cross-cultural interaction under study. The following methods are used: Survey questionnaire Analysis of the collected data: statistic, descriptive, interpretive, comparative and contrastive Reference to home and foreign publication Consultation with supervisor, Vietnamese and foreign colleagues. Scope of the study Non-verbal factors are believed to be very important for keeping face at the first encounter. However they are beyond the scope of this study. The study only focuses on the verbal aspects and the data analysis of politeness and safe and unsafe topics. The study is limited within the first encounter conversation in five groups and 3 situations The survey questionnaires are given to 100 native speakers of Vietnamese (NSVs) people and 100 native speakers of English (NSEs) people. However, 50 questionnaires of the NSVs and 50 questionnaires of NSEs are selected for. Design of the study The study consists of 3 parts: Part A: Introduction Part B: development Chapter 1: Theoretical Preliminaries Chapter 2: Methodology Chapter 3: Results and discussion Part C: conclusion PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES I.1. Culture and communication I.1.1. What Culture? Up to now, there have been many definitions of “culture”. It can be defined as “what makes you a stranger when you are away from home. It includes all those beliefs and expectations about how people should speak and act which have become a kind of second nature to you as a result of social learning. When you are with members of a group who share your culture, you do not have to think about it, for you are all viewing the world in pretty much the same way and you all know, in general terms, what to expect of one another” (Bock, 1970:1). According to Claire Kramsch, “culture can be defined as membership in a discourse community that shares a common social space and history, and common imaginings. Even when they have left that community, its members may retain, wherever they are, a common system of standards for perceiving, believing, evaluating and acting.” (1998: 10). Actually, people in one community acquire common ways of viewing the world, common attitudes, beliefs and values… through their interactions. They “share the same background (for example, national, ethnic, religious) resulting from a common language and communication style, customs, beliefs, attitudes and values” (Quang, N, 1998: 3). However, we can hardly see the influence of culture on each individual as “it refers to the informal and often hidden patterns of human interactions, expressions, and viewpoints that people in one culture share” (Quang, N, 1998: 3) Adapted from Levine 1987:42) I.1.2. What Communication? Communication is “the process of sharing meaning through verbal and nonverbal behavior” (Quang, N, 1998: 3). Communication is also defined as “any process in which people share information, ideas, and feeling. That process involves not only the spoken and written word, but also the body language, personal mannerism and style, the surroundings – anything that adds meanings to a message” (Hybels and Weaver, 1992: 5). In a communication, meaning can be shared directly to hit the issues or indirectly to avoid issues. It is called direct communication and indirect communication respectively. They all concern the relation between the speakers’ communicative intention, the interlocutors’ expectation of the message and the communicative effects of the message. Problems in communication, especially cross-cultural communication can fall into two types: Non-communication – where no message is communicated; and Miscommunication - where an unintended message is communicated (Clyne, 1994: 26) It is the fact that for successful communication, the communicative effects should be matched to the intention, therefore, there should be sensitiveness and understanding of others’ production and the way they play with various identities which are available to them. Hence, it is so important for a good communicator to realize the surrounding of others’ identities. I.1.3. Culture shock in communication. As discussed above, culture is “a complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, customs and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (Tylor, 1978: 59, cited in Holliday, Hyde and Kullman, 2004). Living in the same society, we do not think about our culture for we all see it in the same way. Moreover, we can also expect other’s behavior without surprising. We cannot separate our life from cultures. Cultures impact on our daily activities in general and on our communication styles in particular. This is all too obvious when we communicate with others who do not share the same culture. Actually, communication styles can and do create misunderstanding and shock in conversations among people from different cultural backgrounds. This can be illustrated with one example below: “The Italian made a strong political statement with which he knew his American friend would disagree. The Italian wanted to involve the American in a lively discussion. The American, rather than openly disagreeing, said, “Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I accept that your opinion is different than mine.” The Italian responded, “That’s all you have to say about it? In general, the American did not enjoy verbal conflicts over politics or anything else. The Italian actually became angry when the American refused to get involved in the discussion. He later explains to the American, “a conversation isn’t fun unless it becomes heated” (cited in Quang, N, 1998: 40) With this example, it is obvious that communication is much influenced by cultures. Before we arrive in a new land, we can think much about the new things which will happen differently there. However, no matter how much we are prepared for the new culture, we find it hard to understand and accept the unfamiliar behaviors and sometimes hard to overcome the new situations. The result is we still feel shocked. “Culture shock is neither good nor bad, necessary nor unnecessary. It is a reality that many people face when in strange and unexpected situations” (Harris and Moran, 1998: 226). Culture shock is related to the feelings in the hearers (Hs) or speakers (Ss) of “estrangement, anger, hostility indecision, frustration, unhappiness, sadness, loneliness, homesickness and even physical illness” (Valdes, 1995: 35). I.1.4. Communicative Competence (C.C) CC is understood as the knowledge that interlocutors need in communication. It is not only the grammatical forms but also the knowledge which is the ability for both Ss and Hs to use in the appropriate way in any contexts. It is a whole of knowledge and many other elements concerned in communication in general and in the intercultural communication in particular. Saville – Troike (1985: 215) assumes: Communicative competence extends to both knowledge and expectation of who may or may not speak in certain settings, when to speak and when to remain silent, whom one may speak to, how one may talk to persons of different statuses and roles, what appropriate nonverbal behaviors are in various contexts, what the routines for turn – taking are in the conversation, how to ask for and give information, how to give commands, how to enforce discipline, and the like – in short, everything involving the use of language and the other communicative dimensions in particular social settings. Along the line, Richards et al. (1992: 65) gives out his definition of CC which consists of: a, knowledge of the grammar and vocabulary of the language. b, knowledge of rules of speaking (e.g. knowledge how to begin and end a conversation, knowing what topics may be talked about in different types of speech events, knowing which address forms should be used with different persons one speaks to and in different situation). c, knowing how to use and respond to different types of speech acts such as requests, advice, apologies, thanks and invitations. d, knowing how to use language appropriately. Upon this view, it is vitally important to build up the socio-cultural rules for language use as an integral part for a successful communication. I.1.5. Small talk in communication Sue: It’s nice to meet you. My friend told me about you. Have you lived in Seattle long? Mark: No, only three months. How about you? Sue: I moved here three years ago from California. Mark: Oh really? I am from California too! Where did you live in California? Sue: In Gilroy, not far from San Jose. Mark: This is really coincidence. I am from Gilroy too. I like telling people I am from the garlic capital of the world. Did you usually go to the summer garlic festival? Sue: I used to go every summer. How about you? Mark: I went to most of them. I thought the one in 1980 was great. Did you go to that one? (Levine and Adelman, cited in Quang, N, 1998: 47). In this conversation, the two participants are asking small talk questions before they found that they share some common backgrounds. It can be seen that the conversation is working easily with small talk questions and this kind of conversation above is called “small talk”. A small talk is defined as an everyday conversation about everyday matters, usually at social events. Normally, small talk is not considered important but it is “an essential aspect of conversation in that it provides a means of easing things along” (Clyne and Michael, 1994: 84). It is used to initiate a conversation after the introduction and functions for maintaining conversations such as keeping them going on, leading to interesting debates. However, small talk requires common expectations among participants about its appropriateness and a common willingness and cultural understanding to take part in. I.2. Politeness I.2.1. What Face? The nature of politeness has been debating for a very long time by the linguists and still not agreed on exactly what it is. Face is the central notion discussed in the area of politeness. Language users are social beings whose various social beliefs, motives and goals are brought into their verbal interaction. The nature of their conversation is affected by these variables; over time they play a role in development of language. It is certain that social motives and goals impact the use of language. When we are in a particular contact, especially at the first encounter where we do not know much or even anything about the others, we need to make our partners see our pleasure to communicate to them. Here face - a social psychological concept and face-work entailed are needed to maintain the communication. According to Goffman (1967), face, or one’s public identity, is a “scared thing”; so people are strongly motivated to protect and manage their face. Face is something which is not located in our of our body but “rather something that is diffusely located in the flow of events in the encounter” (Goffman, 1967: 7) According to Brown and Levinson (1987, 61), face can be defined as “the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself”. It is the emotional and social sense of self that everybody has and expects others to recognize. Face consists of two related aspects: negative and positive face. Negative face is the basic claim to territories personal preserves, right to non-distraction, i.e.: to freedom of action and freedom from imposition. And positive face is the positive consistent self-image or “personality” (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants. In other words, negative face is a person’s want to be unimpeded by others and the desire to be free to act as s/he chooses and not be imposed on: a desire for autonomy and positive face represents a desire for approval, a person’s want to be highly appreciated and approved by selected others in terms of personality, desires, behavior, values and so on. Yule (1996: 60) supports the idea that face is “the public self – image of a person”. The emotional and social sense exists in ourselves and also is something which is expected to be recognized by others. According to him, “politeness is the means employed to show awareness of another’s face”. If someone says something which threatens others’ self-image, it is called a “face threatening act” (FTA). And alternatively, when something is said in order to lessen the threat to others’ individual expectations, it is named a “face saving act” (FSA). In any social communication, people are strongly motivated to protect and manage their positive image which reflects the values and beliefs of themselves. Moreover, because face can only be given by others, it is in everyone’s best interest to maintain each other’s face. When this fails, their feeling may be hurt and “loss of face” is a consequence in the communication. In the social meetings of the human beings, the participants do their best to communicate with their positive face which reflects their values and beliefs. Face-work is involved in the social communication and is the efforts by the participants to avoid losing others’ face. Face-work entails both avoidance strategies (e.g., avoiding unsafe topics or violating another’s territory) and approach-based strategies (e.g., greeting, compliments, and salutations to support one’s relationship). I.2.2. What Politeness? Politeness can be viewed as essentially the linguistic means by which face-work is accomplished. Although politeness is driven by face concerns, these concerns can over the time, settings, individuals, cultures and so on. It lies at the intersection of cultural, social, cognitive, and linguistic processes. Politeness carries a significant role in human interaction in the society. Politeness theory can be seen as a sub-discipline of pragmatics, it can be viewed as an aspect of speech which is governed by the rational rules. They are nothing but the human’s need to maintain the social relationship, peace and to avoid or lessen the conflicts. Hence, politeness, as Brown and Levinson (1987: 13) defines, “is basic to the production of social order and a pre-condition of human cooperation”. According to Richards et al (1985:281), politeness is also considered as a matter related to face which is used to maintain the social interaction: How languages express the social distance between speakers and their different role relationships. How face-work, that is, the attempt to establish, maintain and save face during conversation, is carried out in a speech community. Languages differ in how they express politeness. According to Yule (1997: 60), Politeness is viewed as “the idea of “polite social behavior”, or etiquette within a culture”. In other words, politeness is “a number of different general principles for being polite in social interaction within a particular culture”. I.2.3. Politeness Strategies Politeness up to now has been addressed in different ways by linguists, e.g., Blum-Kulka et al (1985), Blum-Kulka (1987,1990), Janney and Arndt (1992), Mao (1994), Kasper (1990), Fraser (1990), Lakoff (1990), Leech (1983), Brown and Levinson (1987)… However, some general principles are agreed for politeness in the human socio-communicative verbal interaction. They are Politeness Rules by Lakoff (1990), Politeness Strategies by Brown and Levinson (1987) and Politeness Principles – Maxims by Leech (1983). Of all, Brown and Levinson’s theory is the most outstanding and most quoted. In the Politeness theory by Brown and Levinson (1987), politeness is considered as a complex system for softening face-threatening acts. The concept of face is a fundamental construct in this theory. More importantly, it can be seen as a meditating variable, a construct which is used to meditate between language use and a host of social psychological variables. As a result, five strategies of politeness so as to minimize the loss of face are set up by Brown and Levinson (figure No 1). In social communication, the choice of strategy which is made depends on the interlocutors’ background, education, culture etc. According to Brown and Levinson (1987), negative politeness seems to be more polite. Hence, it is put at a higher degree of politeness than positive one. However, this appears controversial cross-culturally. In the Western cultures, negative politeness is preferable in communication for its conventionalization but it seems opposite to the Asian cultures, particularly to the Vietnamese one. Positive politeness tends to be their preferred choice for saving face for narrowing the gap among the interactants as well as making their relationship closer in the talk. Although Brown and Levinson’s chart is highly appreciated, Quang, N. (1998) offers another figure (figure No2) with some comments on its universal values. According to him, negative politeness is as powerful as positive politeness is on equal footing in communication. I.2.3.1. Positive Politeness Strategies According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 101), “positive politeness is redress directed to the addressee’s face, his perennial desire that his wants (or the action, acquisitions, values resulting from them) should be thought of as desirable. In positive politeness the sphere of redress is widened to the appreciation of other’s wants in general or to the expression of similarity between ego’s and other’s wants”. Quang, N, (2003: 24) holds that “positive politeness is any communicative act which is intentionally and appropriately meant to show the speaker’s concern to the addressee, thus, enhancing the sense of solidarity between them”. Quang, N sees that while communicating, Vietnamese people tend to show their attention to the others’ problems and give their hands when necessary. As a result, seventeen strategies of positive politeness are suggested, of which fifteen first ones are originally adopted by Brown and Levinson. Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H (his interest, wants, needs, goods) Eg: You must be so hungry. How about dinner now? Chà, hôm nay có phi vụ gì mà cậu diện bộ củ này thế? Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H) Eg: What a fantastic novel you have! Nhờ tập thể thao thường xuyên, chị có phom người tuyệt vời quá! Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H Eg: You know, pink you like, so good color. Xinh như cậu thì có hàng tỉ anh chết. Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers Eg: Let’s go for a walk, honey. Chị em mình đi ăn kem đi. Strategy 5: Seek agreement Eg: A: I am learning French now for my further study. B: French! Great. A: Anh chuẩn bị chuyển công ty rồi. Anh sẽ chuyển về làm ở ngân hàng Vietcombank. B: Ngân hàng Vietcombank hả? Xin chúc mừng anh. Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement Eg. She is beautiful, however, a bit small. Tôi hiểu những khó khăn mà anh gặp phải, nhưng mỗi cơ quan đều có một nguyên tắc riêng. Strategy 7. Presuppose/raise/assert common ground Eg. Oh, dear, I have lost something, have we, Vuong? Chị biết đấy, chồng em chịu khó lắm nhưng bận nên cũng không giúp em được gì. Strategy 8. Joke Eg. Is it ok if I tackle this good apple? Chị đâu dám cưa sừng làm nghé hả em? Strategy 9. Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants Eg. I know that roses are your favorite in your party but there are nothing left in the market, hence lilies are instead today. Theo như tôi được biết, anh đã xoay xở công việc trên Hà Nội một mình mà vẫn thành công. Strategy 10. Offer promise Eg. I will give you one hand for your birthday next week. Lúc nào rảnh anh sang thăm nhà em nhé? Strategy 11. Be optimistic Eg. Maybe, I have to go now. Cậu khéo tay hay làm thì làm món sa lát Nga cho mình nhé. Strategy 12. Include both S and H in the activity. Eg. Let’s go out for dinner now. Ta nghỉ ăn trưa đã. Strategy 13. Give (or ask for ) reasons. Eg. Why don’t you spare some time for yourself? Tại sao anh không đi câu cá cùng chúng tôi vào cuối tuần này nhỉ? Strategy 14. Assume or assert reciprocity Eg. You cook and I tidy up the house, ok? Có gì đâu. Chẳng lẽ anh chị đã quên là anh chị đã giúp em rất nhiều à? Strategy 15. Give gift to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation) Eg. I have a present for you. It’s a scarf from India. Tớ vừa đi Ấn Độ về. Tớ mua tặng cậu chiếc khăn tơ tằm này. Strategy 16. Encourage Eg. Never mind! Better luck next time. Đừng sợ. Anh sẽ luôn đứng sau ủng hộ em. Strategy 17. Ask personal question Eg. How old are you? Lương của cháu trên trường Xây Dựng có cao không? I.2.3.2. Negative Politeness Strategies In Brown and Levinson (1987: 129), negative politeness is “redressive action addressed to the addressee’s negative face: his want to have his freedom of action unhindred and his attention unimpeded”. Quang, N, (2003: 88) shares this opinion “negative politeness is any communicative act which is intentionally and appropriately meant to show that the speaker does not want to impinge on the addressee’s privacy, thus maintaining the sense of distance between them”. In order to avoid FTAs, eleven negative strategies are given out. Strategy 1. Be conventionally indirect Eg. Honey, it is time for tea. Anh có thể cho tôi mượn xe máy của anh một lát được không? Strategy 2. Question, hedge Eg. I think she’s not learning more. Dạ, phiền anh có thể cho tôi mượn xe một phút được không ạ? Strategy 3. Be pessimistic Eg. Could you jump over that five-foot fence? Có lẽ anh mua giùm cho chiếc điện thoại đó nhé. Strategy 4. Minimize the imposition Eg. I just want to borrow you a little pen. Con chỉ nếm một chút thôi ạ. Strategy 5. Give deference Eg. Ass. Prof Nguyen, I am looking forward to hearing from you. Dạ, kính thưa cụ, cụ có thể thưởng thức trà được chưa ạ? Strategy 6. Apologize Eg. I am so sorry to trouble you. Xin lỗi, chị có thể chỉ cho tôi đường đến hồ Hoàn Kiếm được không ạ? Strategy 7. Impersonalize S and H Eg. Open the door! Tôi đề nghị ngày mai chúng ta đi làm đúng giờ nhé. Strategy 8. State the FTA as a general rule Eg. Passengers will please refrain from flushing toilets on the train. Ta không nên bàn chuyện làm ăn ở chốn đông người. Strategy 9. Nominalize Eg. I am pleased to be able to inform you that you have passed the exam. Ngày càng nhiều công ty nước ngoài vào Việt Nam đầu tư cho ngành viễn thông. Strategy 10. Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H Eg. I could easily do it for you any time. Bác làm ơn làm phúc giúp cháu nốt lần này nhé. Strategy 11. Avoid asking personal questions. Eg. The weather today is so hot, isn’t it? Giao thông Hà Nội gần đây tệ hại quá. An empirical study of keeping face at the first encounter in English and Vietnamese within the boundary of safe and unsafe topics and small-talk starters in the light of politeness theory is to be conducted. CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY II.1. Research questions For the achievements of the aims of study in chapter one, three research questions are addressed: What topics do NSEs and NSVs often resort to for avoidance of face threat at the first encounter? Do NSEs differ from NSVs in terms of their evaluation of power, age and gender realizing small-talk starters at the first meeting in the contexts studied? If yes, how do their evaluations affect their choice of politeness strategies? II.2. Data collection methods II.2.1.The discourse completion task (DCT). There have been so far some good methods for cross-cultural and inter-language studies such as ethnographic method, role – play method and discourse completion task (DCT). In terms of ethnographic method, the most advantageous point is that the authentic or natural data are collected through daily conversations. However, we can hardly manage the contextual variables that can happen in the same contexts. Moreover, it takes much time to transcript the tapes recorded. As for role-play method, it also has one advantageous point. That is to record the conversations which are arranged with subjects asked to make face-to-face conversations. One thing different to the above method is that in this method, the contextual variables are controlled. But to do this method, it also takes much time on tape records. DCT appears to be the method which can solve the limitation of the two methods above. DCT consists of two different types: Oral Completion Task and Written Completion Task. The first one is modeled as a closed role-play and in this closed role-play; the researcher will verbally describe the situations and ask the role-playing people what to say in the situations. The second one consists of written interactions. Briefly described situations are given and the researchers will ask the informants to write down what they will say in those situations. Although this method has the limited point which is non-authentic collected data or the absence of prosodic and non-verbal features, the research author still chooses this one for the following reasons: Firstly, this method can control the internal context variables such as social distance and power which, according to Brown and Levinson (1987), strongly affect the linguistic forms in interaction, and also the external context variables such as age, occupation, sex….Second, DCT works as an effective tool of collecting a big amount of data quickly and easily. These seem to be suitable for the author’s study with time constraint. II.2.2. Data collection instrument Two questionnaires are designed for the aim of data collection. The first one is a multiple-choice questionnaire (MCQ) which is plotted separately for the author’s aim to get results to design the DCT, also the other part of the survey questionnaire. The MCQ consists of 20 suggested topics. The informants are asked to put a tick (v) in the place where they think it is advisable to mention the topics at the first meeting so as to be safe. There are five different degrees: highly advisable, advisable, all right, unadvisable and strongly unadvisable. Because there are two groups of informants: NESs and NVSs, hence, the survey questionnaire is designed into two versions. The English version is for the English informants. And the Vietnamese one is for Vietnamese informants. The topics with the high rates of “highly advisable”, “advisable” and “all right” for both English and Vietnamese are work, studying, weather, sports, family, music, place of birth and place of residence. Nevertheless, due to limited time, three topics of work, family and sports are selected to design the DCT. A sample item of MCQ and DTC is given below: Do you think it is advisable to mention the following topics at the first meeting so as to be safe? Please tick (v) in one of the following columns: Column 1 means: highly advisable (HAD) Column 2 means: advisable (AD) Column 3 means: all right (AR) Column 4 means: unadvisable (UAD) Column 5 means: strongly unadvisable (SUAD) Ord Topics 1 2 3 4 5 1 Age 2 Politics 3 Weight 4 Salary 5 Work 6 Weather 7 Material life 8 Religion 9 Sex life 10 News 11 Studying 12 Music 13 Health 14 Pets 15 Family 16 The cost of particular items 17 Other people’s affairs 18 Sports 19 Marital status 20 Place of current residence DCT When you first meet your business partner in the office, how would you talk to him/her about your and/or his/her work? (He/She is your age and your gender) a. He/She is of higher status: …………………………………………………………………………………… b. He/She is of equal status: …………………………………………………………………………………… c. He/She is of lower status: …………………………………………………………………………………… When you first meet your new neighbor in the street, how would you talk to him/her about your and/or his/her family? (He/She is your gender and your power-equal) a. He/She is 10 years older than you: …………………………………………………………………………………… b. He/she is at your age …………………………………………………………………………………… c. He/She is 10 years younger than you: …………………………………………………………………………………… IV: When you first meet your new friend at a party, how would you talk to him/her about sports? (He/She is your age and your power-equal) That person is male …………………………………………………………………………………… b. That person is female …………………………………………………………………………………… The instructions in both MCQ and DCT are clearly provided so that the informants can easily understand and give their best answers. The author hopes that the tokens collected from the survey questionnaire are authentic, natural, typical and reliable for consideration and evaluation. However, as limitations of the study, some aspects are not covered: Paralinguistic factors: pitch, intensity, rate, other vocal qualities, etc. Non-verbal factors: facial expressions, gestures, eye contact, etc. Setting of communication: place, distance, lighting system, heat, etc. Mood factors: happy, unhappy, bore, excited, etc. II.3. Subjects of the study: The survey is conducted with two groups: one is NSEs and the other is NSVs. The Vietnamese informants are working in Hanoi, Vietnam, and the English informants who work for British Council, Language Link, Hilton Hotel or come to Vietnam as tourists. Questionnaires were delivered to 100 NSEs and 100 NSVs. However, 50 questionnaires of NSEs and 50 questionnaires of NSVs are selected for. Among 50 questionnaires of NSEs, 23 are from NSEs who are working in British Council, 18 are from Language-Link Center, 5 from Hilton Hotel, and the rest are from tourists in Vietnam. About 50 questionnaires of NSVs, 15 are from NSVs who are working in University of Civil Engineering, 10 are from the author’s neighbors, 5 are from third-year students and the rest are from the author’s friends who are working in different companies, factories. Besides, as it is believed that the informants’ profiles are important for the research, they are requested to provide information about: Their nationality Their age Their sex Their marital status Their occupation Their residence Their acquisition of foreign language The informants are assured not to be identified in any discussion of the data for the authenticity of the survey questionnaire. CHAPTER III: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION III.1. Safe and unsafe topics at the first encounter Normally, when starting a conversation at the first meeting, after introducing and being introduced, people have to think of what to say to keep it going. Topics at the first encounter are so important for good impression and hence, leading to a further relationship. As we come from different cultures with different characteristics, and cultural hiddens vary from society to society, what are said can satisfy someone in one culture but hurt others in another culture, especially at the first encounter. That is why topics to talk about in the small talk of the first meeting appear important. III.1.1. Data analysis. Collected data from question number 1 are used as the linguistic input. 20 topics are mentioned in this part. Fifty Vietnamese and fifty English are requested to tick (v) in one of five columns for each topic they think advisable or unadvisable at the first meeting. The aim of this part is to focus on whether they think they should mention the suggested topics or not for a smooth - flowing conversation. III.1.1.1 English findings Column 1 means: highly advisable (HAD) Column 2 means: advisable (AD) Column 3 means: all right (AR) Column 4 means: unadvisable (UAD) Column 5 means: strongly unadvisable (SUAD) Ord Topics 1 2 3 4 5 1 Age 9% 78% 13% 2 Politics 85% 15% 3 Weight 89% 11% 4 Salary 94% 6% 5 Work 93% 7% 6 Weather 96% 4% 7 Material life 8% 92% 8 Religion 88% 12% 9 Sex life 100% 10 News 73% 27% 11 Studying 91% 9% 12 Music 10% 88% 2% 13 Health 90% 6% 4% 14 Pets 87% 13% 15 Family 92% 8% 16 The cost of particular items 90% 10% 17 Other people’s affairs 94% 6% 18 Sports 5% 91% 4% 19 Marital status 6% 80% 14% 20 Place of current residence 20% 65% 15% Table 1: Percentages of suggested topics in the first encounter of English informants As we can see from the table 1, NSEs are so open to talk about such topics as weather (96% AD), work (93% AD), news (73% AD), studying (91% AD), music (88% AD), health (90% AD), pets (87% AD), family (92% AD), sports (91% AD) and place of current residence (65% AR) meanwhile some topics seem to be avoided to be discussed such as age (78% UAD), politics (85% UAD), weight (89% UAD), salary (94% UAD), material life (92% UAD), religion (88% UAD), sex (100%SUAD), the cost of particular items (90% UAD), other people’s affairs (94% UAD) and marital status (80% UAD). These topics carry the personal and private information for an initial meeting. III.1.1.2. Vietnamese findings Column 1 means: highly advisable (HAD) Column 2 means: advisable (AD) Column 3 means: all right (AR) Column 4 means: unadvisable (UAD) Column 5 means: strongly unadvisable (SUAD) Ord Topics 1 2 3 4 5 1 Age 22% 72% 6% 2 Politics 6% 84% 10% 3 Weight 35% 65% 4 Salary 15% 70% 15% 5 Work 75% 22% 3% 6 Weather 40% 60% 7 Material life 8% 90% 2% 8 Religion 8% 80% 12% 9 Sex life 100% 10 News 60% 40% 11 Studying 27% 68% 5% 12 Music 20% 75% 5% 13 Health 30% 70% 14 Pets 16% 84% 15 Family 80% 20% 16 The cost of particular items 19% 81% 17 Other people’s affairs 11% 7% 82% 18 Sports 80% 20% 19 Marital status 32% 60% 8% 20 Place of current residence 27% 70% 3% Table 2: Percentages of suggested topics in the first encounter of Vietnamese informants It can be seen from the table that, in the first meeting, NSVs tend to talk about topics such as age (72% AD), work (75% AR), weather (60% AR), news (60% AD), studying (68% AR), music (75% AD), health (70% AR), pets (84% AR), family (80% AD), cost of particular items (81% AR), sports (80% AD), marital status (60% AR), place of current residence (70% AR). However, some topics are avoided such as politics (84% UAD), weight (65% UAD), salary (70% UAD), material life (90% UAD), religion (80% UAD), sex life (100% SUAD) and other people’s affairs (82% SUAD) for their sensitiveness to the first meeting. III.1.2 Cross-cultural similarities and differences From the results shown in table 1 and 2, it is observed that some of these twenty suggested topics are preferred in the first meeting by NSVs while avoided by NSEs. Those are age, marital status, the cost of particular items. It might be the case that the Vietnamese regard such private and personal topics as good opportunities for them to show their concern, friendliness, consideration to their communicating partners even in their first meeting. This seems to prove the positive-politeness orientation of the Vietnamese culture. According to the survey, both English and Vietnamese informants are willing to talk about weather, music, health, pets, work, studying, news, sports, family and place of residence in the first meeting. They also share one common thing: avoiding sensitive topics such as salary, politics, sex life, material life and religion. This can be shown in the following table: Ord Topics English Vietnamese 1 Weather 96% 60% 2 News 73% 60% 3 Music 88% 75% 4 Work 93% 75% 5 Pets 87% 84% 6 Studying 91% 68% 7 Sports 91% 80% 8 Family 92% 80% 9 Health 90% 70% 10 Place of residence 65% 70% Table 3: Percentages of topics both English and Vietnamese informants like to mention in small talks in the first encounter. The table shows that these topics are more preferred by NSEs than NSVs. Weather is the most different topic in percentage (NSEs 96% “AD” and NSVs 60% “AR”), followed by Work (NSEs 93% “AD” and NSVs 75% “AR”), Studying (NSEs 91% “AD” and NSVs 68% “AR”) and Health (NSEs 90% “AD” and NSVs 70% “AR”). Then comes the topics Sports and Family which have quite similar level of difference. The topics which have smallest difference are Pets and Place of residence, accounting for 87% “AD”, 65% “AR” and 84% “AR”, 70% “AR” for NSEs and NSVs respectively, and then comes News and Music. For the public image of interlocutors in the first meeting, both NSEs and NSVs have some sensitive and affecting topics to avoid. This can be shown in the below table. Ord Topics English Vietnamese 1 Salary 94% 70% 2 Material life 92% 90% 3 Politics 85% 84% 4 Sex life 100% 100% 5 Religion 88% 80% 6 Other people’s affairs 94% 82% Table 4: Percentages of topics both English and Vietnamese informants do not like to mention in small talks in the first encounter. The table does not show much difference in the percentage of avoided topics. It is obvious that “Sex life” topic is the most sensitive one and both NSEs and NSVs do not talk about it, accounting for 100% “SUAD” for both. Then comes the topics of Material life (92% “UAD” for NSEs and 90% “UAD” for NSVs), Politics (85% “UAD” for NSEs and 84% “UAD” for NSVs), followed by Religion, Other people’s affairs and the biggest difference is Salary which accounts for 94% (UAD) for NSEs and 70% (UAD) for NSVs. To summarize, at the first encounter, the topics which are considered safe for both the English and Vietnamese informants are Weather, News, Music, Work, Pets, Studying, Sports, Family, Health and Place of residence. The topics regarded as unsafe are Salary, Material life, Politics, Sex life, Religion and Other people’s affairs. III.2. Politeness Strategies used at the first encounter. In this part, the results of the investigation of Politeness Strategy (PS) are presented. NSEs and NSVs’ use of Positive Politeness Strategies (PPSs), Negative Politeness Strategies (NPSs), Mixed Positive Politeness Strategies (MPPSs), Mixed Negative Politeness Strategies (MNPSs) and Mixed Positive - Negative Politeness Strategies (MPNPSs) through three situations is reported. In this study, both English informants and Vietnamese informants are asked to talk or ask their business partner in the office about informants’/his/her work, their new neighbor about informants’/his/her family in the street, someone whom the participants have just made acquaintance with about sports in a party. The speech act of asking or talking like this conveys Politeness. Hence, to study the ways they use, the research author uses the Theory of Politeness by Brown and Levinson and Quang, N. There are 3 categories: Positive Politeness Strategies (PPSs), Negative Politeness Strategies (NPSs) and Mixed Politeness Strategies (MPSs) are used as analytical framework. In each category, the strategies are exploited by the participants, and then calculated as percentages. The frequency of using the strategies in each category is symbolized F. III.2.1. English findings. III.2.1.1. Power influence in the communication at the first encounter. Situation PPSs F % NPSs F % MPSs F % a. To business partner of higher status in the office. PPS1 10 31.25 NPS1 8 18.60 MPPS 6 33.33 PPS4 8 25 NPS2 12 27.91 MNPS 8 44.44 PPS9 4 12.5 NPS4 3 6.98 MP-NPS 4 22.22 PPS10 10 31.25 NPS5 8 18.60 NPS6 8 18.60 NPS7 4 9.30 Total 32 100% Total 43 100% Total 18 100% b. To their business partner of equal status in the office. PPS1 9 31.03 NPS1 6 15.38 MPPS 5 34.71 PPS4 7 24.14 NPS2 12 30.77 MNPS 6 43.86 PPS9 4 13.79 NPS4 3 7.69 MP-NPS 3 21.43 PPS10 9 31.03 NS5 7 17.95 NPS6 7 17.95 NPS7 4 10.26 Total 29 100% Total 39 100% Total 14 100% C. To their business partner of lower status in the office. PPS1 8 31.5 NPS1 5 15.86 MPPS 3 33.33 PPS4 6 24.2 NPS2 8 29.57 MNPS 4 44.44 PPS9 3 12.7 NPS4 2 7.14 MP-NPS 2 22.22 PPS10 8 32 NPS5 6 18.13 Total 25 100 NPS6 6 18.13 NPS7 3 10.71 Total 9 100% Total 28 100 Table 5: Presentation politeness strategies used by English informants to their business partner about work in the office at the first encounter. From the table, the English informants use PPSs, NPSs and MPSs in the way they ask/ talk with their business partner in the office about work. In general, they use more NPSs than PPSs and MPSs. In terms of talking/asking about work to their partner of higher status, the English informants are using four PPSs, in which PPS1-Notice, attend to H (31.25%) and PPS10-Offer, promise (31.25%) are used most, six NPSs, in which NPS2-Question, hedge is used most (27.91%), MPPS, MNPS and MP-NPS. As for a business partner of equal and lower status in the office, there is not much difference in English informants’ use of PPS and MPS compared to their use of these strategies when they talk to their business partner of higher status. For example in using NPS, there is a little bit different but it is not significant. When talking/asking about work to their business partner of higher status in the office, the English informants employ the NPS1-Be conventionally indirect (18.6%), the NPS5-Give deference (18.6%) and NPS6-Apology (18.6%) are used more than when the informants talk/ask about work to their equal-powered business partner (accounting for 15.38%, 17.95%, 17.95% respectively) and their lower-powered business partner (accounting for 15.86%, 18.13%, 18.13% respectively). The common utterances are: I am wondering if you could provide me some more information about the project of ICT please. ( Be conventional Indirect) I am going to have some important projects. I am wondering if you can co-operate with me please? ( Be conventional Indirect). I suppose you will get to my current project. (Question, hedge) So I suppose you are spending a lot of time together. (Question, hedge) It is expected that our project planned today will be implemented. (Impersonalize S and H). I know you are busy, but thank you for spending time for me. Shall we discuss our work today? (Apologize and assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants and use in-group identity markers). It is expected that our project planned today will be implemented, sir (Impersonalize S and H and Five deference). From the discussion and statistics above, a conclusion can be drawn that there is no significant power influence in the way they are talking/asking about work. There is no clear cut in the use of conventional indirect utterances, addressee honorifics, apologizing words to talk to their business partners at different status. And the fact that NSEs make use of more NPS than PPS can conclude that they show their great interest to the individual freedom and do not like being imposed by others. III.2.1.2. Age influence in the communication at the first encounter. Situation PPSs F % NPSs F % MPSs F % a. To their 10-year-older neighbor PPS1 11 32.35 NPS1 6 8.57 MPPS 4 66.66 PPS2 4 11.76 NPS2 6 8.57 MNPS 0 0 PPS4 4 11.76 NPS5 10 14.29 PPS5 9 26.47 NPS6 8 11.43 MP-NPS 2 33.33 PPS10 6 17.65 NPS10 4 5.71  NPS11 36  51.43 Total 34 100% Total 70 100% Total 3 100% b. To their same age neighbor PPS1 11 32.35 NPS1 6 8.57 MPPS 2 66.66 PPS2 4 11.76 NPS2 6 8.57 MNPS 0 0 PPS4 4 11.76 NPS5 10 14.29 MP-NPS 1 33.33 PPS5 9 26.47 NPS6 8 11.43 PPS10 6 17.65 NPS10 4 5.71 NPS11 36  51.43 Total 34 100% Total 70 100% Total 3 100% c. To their ten-year-younger neighbor. PPS1 11 32.35 NPS1 6 8.57 MPPS 2 66.66 PPS2 4 11.76 NPS2 6 8.57 MNPS 0 0 PPS4 4 11.76 NPS5 10 14.29 MP-NPS 1 33.33 PPS5 9 26.47 NPS6 8 11.43 PPS10 6 17.65 NPS10 4 5.71 NPS11 36  51.43 Total 34 100% Total 70 100% Total 3 100% Table 6: Presentation politeness strategies used by English informants to their new neighbor in the street at the first encounter From the table 6, when the informants are required to talk/ask their new neighbor who is ten years older than them/as their age/ or 10 years younger than them, they use PPS, NPS and MPS. However, whereas there is quite a balance of PPS and NPS, MPS is used least among them. When talking to their new neighbor of different ages, the English informants tend to use PPS, NPS rather than MPS, according to the survey. There is a difference in each category of strategies. Of all PPSs, PPS1-Notice, attend to H accounts the most frequency (32.35%) and the least is PPS 2-Exaggerate (11.76%) and PPS4-Use in-group identity markers (11.76%). Meanwhile, NPS11-Avoid asking personal questions (51.43%) is used most when the informants talk to their new neighbor. For examples: I think you can call me if you need my help. My wife and my three children are warmly welcomed you. (Question, hedge) My house is very near yours, Drop me next week, ok? (Offer, promise). About mixed strategies, mixed strategy of positive are more favor (66.66%). How many children have you got? I saw them last week playing in your garden. How marvelous garden it is! (Notice, attend to H and Exaggerate) My house is very near yours, drop me next week, my neighbor, ok? (Offer, promise and use in-group identity markers). From the information above, a conclusion can be drawn that there is no age influence on the way the English informants talk/ask about topic family to their new 10 year older neighbor, their new same age neighbor and their new 10 year younger neighbor. But one noticeable point here is that NSEs employ so much NPS11-Avoiding asking personal questions (51.43%) when they talk to their new neighbor of different ages about their family. This fact once again demonstrates that individual problems are not a favorable topic in communication in Western culture. This seems to suggest that in the Western culture, asking detailed personal questions means nosy behaviors, threatening others’ face. III.2.1.3. Gender influence in the communication at the first encounter Situation PPSs F % NPSs F % MPSs F % a. To a Male. PPS1 10 20.83 NPS1 2 6.06 MPPS PPS4 4 8.33 NPS2 5 15.15 MNPS 0 0 PPS5 24 50.00 NPS5 2 6.06 MP-NPS 0 0 PPS10 4 8.33 NPS6 7 21.21 PPS13 6 12.50 NPS11 17 51.52 Total 48 100% Total 33 100% Total 0 0% b. To a Female. PPS1 22 31.43 NPS1 2 6.06 MPPS 4 30.77 PPS2 10 14.29 NPS2 5 15.15 MNPS 6 46.15 PPS4 4 5.71 NPS5 2 6.06 MP-NPS 3 23.08 PPS5  24  34.29 NPS6 7 21.21 PPS10 4 5.71 NPS11 17 51.52 P PS 13 6  8.57 Total 70 100% Total 49 100% Total 13 100% Table 7: Presentation politeness strategies used by English informants to their new friend at the first encounter in a party The table 7 is the presentation of the PS used by the English informants to their new friend in a party about sports. PPSs, NPSs and MPSs appear in the ways they ask/talk to their new friend in a party about sports. From the statistics, they expose some differences. When male English informants ask/talk about sports to their new male friend at their same age in a party, they use five PPSs while six PPSs are employed by the female English informants when they talk about sports to their new female friend. However, the percentage of PPS 1-Notice, attend to H is more than 1,5 times (31.43% compared to 20.83%). Talking to a new female friend, the female English informants show more concerns, interest to her wants, goods such as appearance, accessories…which relate to sports and usually pay their compliments to them. That can be shown through the percentage of the use of PPS 2-Exaggerate (14.29%) to a new female friend while this strategy is not used for a new male friend by the male English informants. For examples: You are so wonderful in this hair style, and you look so fit. What kind of sports do you like most? (Exaggerate and Notice, attend to H). You are so shining in your beautiful dress. It suits you. Are you a fan of aerobics? (Exaggerate). From the table 7, the biggest difference among the ways used to a new male friend and a new female friend is the MPSs. There are no MPSs used by the male English informants when they talk about sports to their new male friend while these are applied to talk to a new female friend. MNPS accounts for 46.15%, twice as many as MP-NPS. Example can be illustrated as follow: I like Yoga so much and I am a member of a Yoga class. Thanks God I know that you are doing Yoga. Would you like to join me some day and we will share this marvelous sports, ok? And could you give me then some more experience please? (Seek agreement + Offer, promise +be conventionally indirect). With the discussion above, the author can conclude that there is a gender influence when the English informants talk/ask the others about sports even sports is one of the considered safe topics. The difference may come from the fact that appearance issues which can be better, positively changed with sports always attract woman; this can be a universal value. However, it is regretted that this study cannot collect enough conditions to investigate the gender influence between male and female and vice verse when they talk about sports at the first encounter. III.2.2. Vietnamese findings. III.2.2.1. Power influence in the communication at the first encounter. Situation PPSs F % NPSs F % MPSs F % a. To their higher-powered business partner in the office PPS1 13 24.53 NPS1 13 23.21 MPPS 10 31.25 PPS4 5 9.43 NPS2 15 26.79 MNPS 6 18.75 PPS5 8 15.09 NPS5 8 14.29 MP-NPS 16 50 PPS9 12 22.64 NPS6 7 12.5 PPS10 9 16.98 NPS9 10 17.86 PS11 4 7.55 NS10 3 5.36 PPS 17 2 3.77 Total 53 100% Total 56 100% 32 100% b. To their equal-powered business partner in the office PPS1 13 24.07 NPS1 3 17.64 MPPS 3 42.86 PPS4 9 16.67 NPS2 4 23.52 MNPS 1 14.29 PPS5 4 7.41 NPS5 2 11.76 MP-NPS 3 42.86 PPS9 9 16.67 NPS6 2 11.76 PPS10 9 16.67 NPS9 3 17.64 PPS11 4 7.41 NPS10 3 17.64 PPS17 6 11.11 Total 54 100% Total 17 100% Total 7 100% c. To their lower-powered business partner in the office PPS1 8 16.67 NPS1 1 14.29 MPPS 3 42.86 PPS4 12 25.00 NPS2 1 14.29 MNPS 1 14.29 PPS5 2 4.17 NPS9 1 14.29 MP-NPS 3 42.86 PPS9 5 10.42 NPS10 4 57.14 PPS10 9 18.75 PPS11 4 8.33 PPS17 8 16.67 Total 57 100% Total 7 100% Total 7 100% Table 8: Presentation politeness strategies used by Vietnamese informants to their business partner in the office at the first encounter Overall, when the Vietnamese informants ask their business partner about work, they use more PPSs than NPSs and MPSs. And the MPSs have the least frequency. When the Vietnamese informants ask their business partner of higher status about work, they use 24.53% for PPS 1-Notice, attend to H, the same as to their equal-powered but less to their lower-powered one. They show more their interest, consideration to their higher-powered-business partner about their work, their position, their working style… For examples: Với vị trí cao thế nay, chắc hẳn công việc của anh bận rộn lắm phải không? Anh làm giám đốc dự án được lâu chưa? Công ty của anh có thường làm dự án với công ty nước ngoài không? By contrast, when talking/asking about work, the Vietnamese informants ask personal questions least for their business partner of higher status (3.77%) while they use these questions 4 times more to their business partner of lower status (14.4%). For examples: Công việc thế này thì lương lậu của mình thế nào? (PPS17) Anh làm dự án bận rôn, thời gian không cố định thì anh có thời gian chăm sóc gia đình nhiều không? Anh được mấy cháu rồi? (PPS17) PPS 9-Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants also contributes more difference. They use more percentages for their higher-powered business partner (22.64%), less for their equal-powered business partner (16.67%) and least for their lower-powered one (10.42%). In terms of NPS used for a business partner at different power status about work by the Vietnamese informants, the most noticeable point is that the informants refuse to use NPS 5-Give deference and NPS 6-Apology when they talk to the lower-powered business partner, but they make use of them quite a lot when they talk to business partner of higher status (14.29%, 12.5% respectively) and to one of equal status (11.76% and 11.76% respectively). The NPS 1-Be conventionally indirect, NPS 2 – Question, hedge and NPS 9-Nominalize are used for a business partner of higher status account for 23.21%, 26.79% and 17.86% respectively, for a business partner of equal status account for 17.64%, 23.52% and 17.64% respectively, for a business partner of lower status account for 14.29%, 14.29% and 14.29% respectively. However, the NPS 10-Go on record as incuring a debt, or as not indebting H (57.14%) used for business partner of lower status is far more than it for a business partner of equal status (17.64%) and for a business partner of higher status (5.36%). The NPS 5- Give deference is used least (5.36%). Looking at the MPS, for a business partner of high status, the MNPS(18.75%), MP-NPS (50%) seem to be over compared to a business partner of equal status and lower status who gain equally percentage (42.86% and 42.86% respectively). And the MPPS used for a business partner of higher status is lower than for a business partner of equal and lower status. From the discussion above, a conclusion can be drawn that power has much influence in the way the Vietnamese informants use to talk/ask about work to their business partners at different status. To a business partner of higher status, they show more concerns, interest, and consideration to their job with more conventionally indirect, hedge utterance with more addressee honorifics, sorry words….than to their business partner of equal and lower status. This means that a business partner of higher status is paid more attention and achieves more respect than a business partner of equal or lower status. This can be considered as one of the fundamental characteristics in Eastern culture in general and in Vietnamese culture in particular. At the first encounter, the utterances which relate to family and salary are usually avoided when talking with the person who is of higher status, but they can be used when talking with the one who is of equal and lower status. III.2.2.2. Age influence in the communication at the first encounter Situation PPSs F % NPSs F % MPSs F % a. To their 10-year-older neighbor PPS1 18 22.78 NPS1 14 28 MPPS 8 47.06 PPS2 8 10.13 NPS2 8 16 MNPS 2 11.76 PPS4 2 2.53 NPS5 8 16 MP-NPS 7 41.18 PPS5 2 2.53 NPS6 6 12 PPS9 4 5.06 NPS11 14 28 PPS10 28 35.44 PPS17 17 21.52 Total 79 1.00 Total 50 100% Total 17 100% b. To their same age neighbor PPS1 18 22.78 NPS2 4 25 MPPS 3 42.85 PPS2 5 6.32 NPS5 2 12.5 MNPS 1 14.28 PPS4 5 6.32 NPS6 2 12.5 MP-NPS 3 42.85 PPS5 2 2.53 NPS11 8 50 PPS9 4 5.06 PPS10 22 27.84 PPS17 23 29.11 Total 79 1 Total 8 100% Total 7 100% c. To their ten-year-younger neighbor. PPS1 20 29.85 NPS2 1 20 MPPS 5 83.33 PPS2 1 1.49 NPS6 1 20 MNPS 0 0 PPS4 8 11.94 NPS11 3 60 MP-NPS 1 16.66 PPS5 2 2.99 PPS9 1 1.49 PPS10 8 11.94 PPS17 27 40.30 Total 67 100% Total 6 1 Total 6 100% Table 9: Presentation politeness strategies used by Vietnamese informants to new neighbor at the first encounter in the street Table 9 represents the results of PSs used by the Vietnamese informants to talk/ask about topic “family” with their new neighbor who is 10 years older, same age or 10 years younger than them. Looking at the table, we can see that PPSs are more inclined than NPSs and MPSs. Talking to their new neighbor at different ages, Vietnamese informants use the same number of PPSs, NPSs and but different in MPSs. However, the percentage of each strategy is various. The percentage of PPS 1-Notice, attend to H (22.78%) used for talking/asking to the Vietnamese informants’ a new 10-year-older neighbor is the same as to their new neighbor at the same age, but it is used lower than for their new 10-year-younger neighbor (29.85%). According to Vietnamese culture, The Vietnamese informants usually show more concern to a younger people. In this case, it is to their new young neighbor. This can be illustrated once more with the PPS 17–Asking personal questions. Talking about family, the Vietnamese informants use most this strategy (40.3%) to their new 10 year-younger neighbor compared to 21.52% to their new 10-year-older neighbor and 29.11% to their new same age neighbor. Their common utterances are: Em đã quen với khu phố này chưa? Em chuyển tới phố này đã biết chợ “Cây Dừa” chưa? (PPS1). Em mới chuyển đến khu này nên mọi thứ lạ quá. Chi có mái tóc đẹp quá. Chị làm ở đâu thế? (PPS1) Tôi thường thấy anh đưa con đi dạo. Cháu nhà anh được mấy tuổi rồi? Mà anh được mấy cháu rồi ạ? PPS 2-Exaggerate is used most for a new10 year - older neighbor (10.13%), ten times than to their new 10 year younger neighbor. E.g. Em thích khu vườn nhà chị lắm. Sao nó đẹp thế chứ lị. Anh nhà chị chắc hẳn phải chiều chị lắm mới xây một khu vườn đẹp thế. Con trai anh mấy tuổi mà trông nhớn thế. Em hôm trước thấy cháu chạy qua nhà em. Trông nó giống anh như đúc. Thế cháu học lớp mấy vậy anh? Besides the difference discussed above, there are some more differences. Talking to a new neighbor who is 10 years older, the Vietnamese informants use NPS 1, 2, 5, 6, 11 meanwhile talking to a new same age neighbor, they use NPS 2, 5, 6 and 11 and talking to a new 10 - year - younger neighbor, NPS 2, 6 and 11 are used. However, the percentage of NPS 2, 6 and 11 for a new 10 – year - younger neighbor are the highest compared to a new 10 year - older and same age neighbor. MPS contributes more to the difference in the way the Vietnamese informants talk/ask about family to their new neighbor. MPS to their new 10 – year - younger neighbor accounts for 83.33%, the most compared to their new 10 year - older - neighbor (47.06%) and to their new same age neighbor (42.85%). However, for this neighbor, MNPS are not used while it is used for their new 10 year – older - neighbor and the one at the same age. In general, there is an age influence in the way the Vietnamese informants talk/ask to their neighbor at different ages about topic “family” although topic “family” is a safe topic. The Vietnamese informants show more concern, interest, consideration to the younger (which can be illustrated with the percentage of PPS used to a new 10 - year - older, same age and 10 year - younger - neighbor) but more respect to the older and keep a bit distant between them. This can be illustrated with the percentage of the PPS 5 - Offer, promise of the informants to their new 10 year – older - neighbor (25.3%) and to their new 10 year- younger - neighbor (11.94%), with the percentage of NPS 5-Give deference for a 10 year - older - neighbor and no NPS 5 for a new 10 year – younger - neighbor. III.2.2.3. Gender influence in the communication at the first encounter. Situation PPSs F % NPSs F % MPSs F % a. To a male PPS1 5 16.13 NPS2 1 1.89 MPPS 2 66.67 PPS4 1 3.23 NPS5 3 5.66 MNPS 0 0.00 PPS5 5 16.13 NPS6 4 7.55 MP-NPS 1 33.33 PPS10 3 9.68 NPS11 45 84.91 PPS11 11 35.48 PPS12 3 9.68 PPS17 3 9.68 Total 31 100% Total 53 100% Total 3 100% b. To a Female PPS1 20 33.33 NPS2 3 9.09 MPPS 14 66.67 PPS2 8 13.33 NPS5 4 12.12 MNPS 0 0.00 PPS4 2 3.33 NPS6 2 6.06 MP-NPS 7 33.33 PPS5 5 8.33 NPS11 24 72.73 PPS11 7 11.67 PPS12 3 5.00 PPS17 15 25.00 Total 60 100% Total 33 100% Total 16 100 Table 10: Presentation politeness strategies used by Vietnamese informants to their new friend at the first encounter in a party. It can be seen from the table that the Vietnamese participants use PPS, NPS and MPS to talk/ask about sports to their new male friend and their new female friend. Generally, when the Vietnamese informants, both male and female ask their new male or female friend who they have just made acquaintance, they use 7 PPS. However, the percentages of the strategies are a bit different. Talking/asking to a new male friend, the male Vietnamese informants use PPS 10- Offer, Promise (9.68%) while it is not used to talk/ask a female. Besides, talking/asking to a female, the Vietnamese female informants use PPS 2-Exaggerate (13.33%). They pay their compliments to their friends’ accessories, figures, and sports which relate to sports. For examples: Hôm nào tôi và anh chơi 1 trận tennis ở sân nhà anh nhé. Tôi muốn học hỏi anh rất nhiều vì tôi mới tập trong thời gian ngắn thôi.(PPS 10). Tuyệt vời. Tôi cũng là một fan hâm mộ đội Manchester đấy. Hùng (người chủ của bữa tiệc) cũng là một tay nghiện đội này đấy. Tôi sẽ bảo Hùng hôm nào tổ chức một cuộc xem bóng đá tại đây cho anh em mình nhé. (PPS10). Mình tập Aerobic có khác. Người đẹp quá, gọn gàng mà khoẻ mạnh. Tập ở đâu thế? Tóc chị nhuộm màu vàng tây rất hợp với dáng thể thao của chị. Tôi thích quá. Chị có chơi môn thể thao nào không mà chuẩn thế? (PPS 2). Besides, to show their consideration to their new friend, the Vietnamese female informants use much PPS 17-Asking personal questions which accounts for 25% compared to 9.68% to a male friend by the Vietnamese male informants. This seems to suggest that in the Vietnamese culture, asking personal questions is a good way to show their best consideration and interest, enhancing their solidarity. It is not curious and nosy. However, male participants are a bit different. Adding to this, NPS 11-Avoiding asking personal questions is used much for a male friend by the male informants (84.91%) while it is used less to a new female friend by the female informants (72.73%). The male informants tend to avoid ask too personal questions. The common utterances are: Chị chơi tennis à? Hèn chi người chị đẹp quá. Mà chơi tennis có tốn kém không? (PPS 2 +PPS 17). Ừ, tôi cũng chỉ tập yoga thôi. Chỗ chị tập có đắt không? Giá bao nhiêu một tháng?Chồng tôi cứ động viên tôi tập cho khoẻ người. Chị chắc có gia đình rồi nhỉ? (PPS 17). Chơi thể thao là cực kì tốt cho anh em mình đấy, nhất là sau ngày làm việc căng thẳng. (NPS11) To a new female friend, NPS 2-Question, hedge is more used, about 9 times than to a new male friend by the male informants (representing about 9.9% and 1.89% respectively). NPS 2 uses indirect way to utter. Basing on the discussion above, it is clear that there is a gender influence in the way the Vietnamese informants talk/ask about sports. The Vietnamese female informants tend to pay more attention, more consideration, more compliments about figure, accessories.., use more indirect utterances to their new female friend than a Vietnamese male informant does to their new male friend. The differences may come from the fact that appearance issues always attract woman; this can be a universal value. III.2.3. Cross-cultural similarities and differences. In interpersonal communication, power, age and gender are among social factors that affect the ways the interlocutors keep their and others’ face. The results of the survey questionnaire in three situations reveals that both NSEs and NSVs have some similarities and differences in keeping face at the first encounter. III.2.3.1. Similarities NSEs and NSVs both share one common thing in communication. That is gender influence in communication. Talking/asking about sports-one of the safe topics for both NSEs and NSVs, both English female participants and Vietnamese female participants shows more concern to their new female friends who they have just got acquaintance. They resort more to compliments, exaggerations, considerations about figure with beautiful words to their new friends. However, both English male participants and Vietnamese male participants show less consideration, interest to male friends who they have got acquaintance in the party. III.2.3.2. Differences In terms of power influence in communication, there are some differences: In general, NSEs tend to use more NPS, less PPS and less MPS than NSVs in communication. According to the survey, the English informants are inclined to use NPS 1- Indirect Conventionally and NPS 2- Question, hedge, NPS 5-Give deference more than the Vietnamese informants. Among the PSs, the PPS 17-Asking personal questions and the NPS 11- Avoiding asking personal the politeness strategies, the Positive Politeness Strategy 17-Asking personal questions and the Negative Politeness Strategy 11-Avoid asking personal questions seem to be the most noticeable. For Vietnamese group, both men and women use PPS17, even at the first meeting. This seems to suggest that in the Vietnamese culture, this strategy is a good way to show concern, consideration and good attitude to their partners, enhancing their solidarity in any meetings. However, the percentage of this strategy is not always high. It depends on genders and situations. For example, in the first situation: When you first meet your business partner in the office, how would you talk to him/her about your and/or his/her occupation? (He/she is at your age and the same gender) a. He/She is of higher status: b. He/She is of equal status: c. He/She is of lower status: To a business partner who is of higher status, the PPS 17 is used less than that to a business partner who is of equal or lower status. Even in this situation compared to situation II and III, its percentage is also the least. While Vietnamese informants use PPS 17 more than English informants, they use less NPS 11-Avoiding asking personal questions. That is different when compared to English group. According to the survey, both men and women of English do not use PPS17 at the first meeting. Instead, they make use of NPS11 in any situation at the first encounter. Meanwhile, NPS11 is used by only some of Vietnamese informants. This can be illustrated by the following chart: From the chart 1, the female Vietnamese informants use PPS17 (25%) while the female English informants do not use this one. In terms of power, the results reveal that there is no power influence on the way the English informants use to their business partner of different statuses at the first meeting meanwhile there is for the Vietnamese informants. With more use of surroundings and tentativeness of Vietnamese questions or utterances, power distance between Vietnamese interlocutors is strongly felt. In terms of age, there is also no age influence on the way the English informants use to their new neighbor of different ages at the first meeting. However, there is for the Vietnamese informants. They show more concern, more consideration, and more interest to a new neighbor who is younger or older. In general, power, age and gender affect the use and the frequency of politeness of the Vietnamese informants while only gender does to the English informants. The cultural differences can be a good explanation for the differences in the use of politeness strategies by Vietnamese and English informants. Social power and age can play a very important role in everyday communication in Vietnamese culture. They can strongly influence on the way the speakers talk and express their ideas. They can also have great impact on the choice of topics in communication. The second explanation can lie in the way the two cultures view the world. Whereas Vietnamese culture advocates the values of collectivism, English one looks for the values of individualism. Personal questions, for example, can be viewed as concern, attention and care from speaker to addressee in Vietnamese culture, but viewed as curiosity and nosiness in English culture. PART C: CONCLUSION Safe and unsafe topics for small talks at the first meeting. At the first encounter, the Vietnamese informants tend to talk about the topics of Age, Work, Marital status, Place of residents, Family. It seems to suggest that in the Vietnamese culture, asking these such topics means showing concern and positive attitudes to their communicating partners. By contrast, the English informants usually mention the topics of Weather, Work, Place of residence, Sports, News, Family, Pets, Health and Studying. The topics preferred by the Vietnamese informants are unsafe to the English informants because they seem too personal and inappropriate for a small talk at the first encounter. 2. Politeness strategy under the influence of power, age and gender. Power and age have no significant influence on the choice of politeness strategies to the English informants. They use quite the same PPS, NPS, MPS to ask/talk about work to their business partner of different status power. Gender makes some difference in the choice of politeness strategies. Female English informants pay more attention, give more compliments and interest to their new female friends bout figure, accessories…which are relate to sports than male English informants do to their new male friends. Power, age and gender all have influence on the choice of politeness strategies to the Vietnamese informants. They resort to politeness strategies in each situation differently. They show more concern, consideration and interest to their business partner at the higher power status, their new neighbor who is 10 years older and their new female friend. 3. Implication for culture teaching. It is well-known that language and culture are interrelated. Therefore, teaching a second language should not be separated from teaching its culture. Basically, when teaching, we should take the following three elements into consideration: teachers’ competence, textbook and development of cultural awareness in EFT classroom. 3.1. Teachers’ competence. Good communication skills and good knowledge of their own culture and the culture of the language they are teaching are the possessions of a language teacher. This is emphasized by Mc Leod (in L.Damen 1987: 329): “the teacher (true mediator) may be a bicultural person, but does not necessarily have to be. But he must possess good communication skills, and above all, an extensive and intensive knowledge and understanding of more than one culture, on both the cognition and affective levels. He must use this knowledge to educate members of each culture about the other….The actions of the true mediator should result in some mutual benefit to the two cultures involved”. 3.2. Textbook Textbook plays an important role in cultural teaching besides the teacher’s competence. It should be based on the learners’ needs, types of skills and the curriculum objectives. In terms of cultural textbooks, there are two kinds: one compiled by English authors and the other by Vietnamese ones. Each kind has its own advantages and disadvantages. The former consists of vivid topics there and in detail but because it is not compiled for Vietnamese learners, therefore, it is quite difficult for Vietnamese learners to comprehend. The latter is advantageous in that it is suitable for different demands and levels of learners with good knowledge of the target language. But it is likely to be culturally biased. That is to say textbooks compiled by the Vietnamese authors are mainly influenced by Vietnamese cultural characteristics. Hence, the cooperation between Vietnamese and Anglophone textbook-writers is believed to be the most effective. 3.3. Developing cultural awareness in EFT classroom. In order to teach culture in the class effectively, developing cultural awareness in ELT classroom plays an important role. As we know, language and culture are interrelated: language is used as the main medium through which culture is expressed. When skills are taught, some culture-based activities should be performed in the class to raise learners’ awareness of cross-cultural differences and develop their interest in the target culture. These comparisons will enrich learners’ knowledge and experience. Following are the suggested areas in cross-cultural communication that can be dealt with in an English class in Vietnam: - Safe topics Types of error in speech. Differences in Vietnamese and English small talks. Preferred patterns of politeness. Verbal taboos. Suggestions for further research. The study of “keeping face” at the first encounter focuses on verbal politeness. The following aspects need further research: Paralinguistic and extralinguistic factors used at the first encounter. Address forms used in small talk at the first encounter. BIBLIOGRAPHY Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words, CUP, London – Oxford, New York. Bock, D.L. (1970). Culture Shock – A Reader in Modern cultural Anthropology, Alfred A. Knoft, Inc. New York. Brown, G & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. CUP Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usages. CUP. Bruner & Richard, J.C (1987, 1985). The context of Language Teaching. CUP. Clyne, M. (1994). Intercultural Communication at work. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cottrill, L. (1991). Face, Politeness and Directness. University of Camberra. Damen, L. (1987). Culture Learning – The Fifth Dimension In The Language Classroom. Addison – Wesley Publishing Company. Ellis, C. (1996). Culture Shock – Vietnam. Time Edition Pte Ltd Singapore. Gee, J.P. (1999). An Introduction To Discourse Analysis, Theory and Method. London & New York. Gies, M.L. (1995). Speech Acts and Conversational Interactions. Cambridge University Press. Goffman, E. (1997). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Holliday, Hyde & Kullman, J. (2004). Intercultural Communication. London & New York. Hybels, S. and Weaver, L. Communicating Effectively. McGraw-Hill. Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford University Press. Leech, J.N. (1980). Language and Tact. Pragmatics and Beyond Series. Longman. Levine, D.R & Adelman, M.B. (1993). Beyond Language – Cross-Cultural Communication. Regents/Prentice Hall Inc. Longman Group UK. (1992). Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture. Longman House. Lyons, J. (1975). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. CUP. Nguyen Quang. (1996). Một số phạm trù giao tiếp văn hoá Việt - Mỹ trong hoạt động giao tiếp. Tập san Ngoại Ngữ số 4. Nguyen Quang. (1996). Một vài suy nghĩ về hình thức xưng hô trong ngôn ngữ. Nội san Ngoại Ngữ số 2. Nguyen Quang. (1998). Intercultural Communication. Vietnam National University – Hanoi. Nguyen Quang. (1998). Trực tiếp và Gián tiếp trong dụng học giao văn hoá Việt-Mỹ. Tập san Ngoại Ngữ số 4. Nguyen Quang. (1999). Các tương tác trực tiếp, gián tiếp và lịch sự trong dụng học giao thoa văn hoá. Tập san Ngoại ngữ số 4. Nguyen Quang. (1999). Cross-Cultural Study on Complimenting and Responding to Compliments in American English and Vietnamese, Ph.D Thesis. Nguyen Quang. (2001). Sắc thái quyền lực trong giao tiếp ngôn ngữ. Tập san Ngoại ngữ số 1. Nguyen Quang. (2002). Giao tiếp và giao tiếp văn hoá. Nhà xuất bản Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội. Nguyen Quang. (2003). Intracultural and Cross-culture Communication. VNU Press. Nguyen Van Do. (1996). Politeness Phenomena in Vietnamese and English Cultures and some Implications in Teaching Language. M.A Thesis. Hanoi Foreign Studies University. Pham Minh Thao. (1997). Nghệ thuật ửng xử của người Việt. NXB Văn hoá thông tin. Richards, J. et al. (1992). Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Longman. Saville-Troike, M. (1986). The Ethnography of Communication – An Introduction. Basil Backwell. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. CUP. Tomalin & Stempleski, S. (1993). Cultural Awareness. Oxford University Press. Valders, J.M. (ed) (1995). Culture Bound. Cambridge. CUP. Wardhaugh, R. (1985). How conversation works. Basil Black well Punlisher Ltd. UK. Wright, A. (1987). How to Communicate Successfully. Cambridge University Press. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. CUP. APPENDIX SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE This survey questionnaire is designed for my research into “An English-Vietnamese Cross-Cultural Study of Keeping Face at the First Encounter”. Your assistance in completing the following items is greatly appreciated. You can be confident that you will not be identified in any discussion of the data. Thank you very much for your assistance. Please tick (v) where appropriate. Your nationality:……………………………… Your age: Below 20 Above 20 Above 30 Above 40 Above 50 - Your gender: Male Female Your marital status: Married Single Your occupation…………………………………………….. Are where you spend most of your time: Urban Rural Acquisition of language(s) other than your mother tongue (Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor) Do you think it is advisable to mention the following topics at the first meeting so as to be safe? Please tick (v) in one of the following columns: Column 1 means: highly advisable Column 2 means: advisable Column 3 means: all right Column 4 means: unadvisable Column 5 means: strongly unadvisable Ord Topics 1 2 3 4 5 1 Age 2 Politics 3 Weight 4 Salary 5 Work 6 Weather 7 Material life 8 Religion 9 Sex life 10 News 11 Studying 12 Music 13 Health 14 Pets 15 Family 16 The cost of particular items 17 Other people’s affairs 18 Sports 19 Place of birth 20 Place of residence When you first meet your business partner in the office, how would you talk to him/her about your and/or his/her work? a. He/She is of higher status: ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… b. He/She is of equal status: ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… c. He/She is of lower status: ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… When you first meet your new neighbor in the street, how would you talk to him/her about your and/or his/her family? a. He/She is 10 years older than you: ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… b. He/She is your age: ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… c. He/She is 10 years younger than you: ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… IV: When you first meet your new friend at a party, how would you talk to him/her about sports? That person is male ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… b. That person is female ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… Thank you very much for your assistance! C¢U Hái kh¶o s¸t Chóng t«i lËp b¶ng c©u hái kh¶o s¸t nµy nh»m phôc vô cho ®Ò tµi nghiªn cøu vÒ “Mét sè kh¸c biÖt giao v¨n ho¸ Anh – ViÖt trong viÖc gi÷ thÓ diÖn trong lÇn ®Çu gÆp gì”. Chóng t«i rÊt biÕt ¬n nÕu QuÝ vÞ bít chót thêi gian tr¶ lêi nh÷ng c©u hái sau gióp chóng t«i. Xin QuÝ vÞ tin r»ng chóng t«i sÏ kh«ng nªu danh tÝnh QuÝ vÞ trong bÊt cø tr­êng hîp nµo vµ d­íi bÊt cø h×nh thøc nµo. RÊt c¸m ¬n sù gióp ®ì cña QuÝ vÞ. Xin QuÝ vÞ ®¸nh dÊu (v) vµ ®iÒn vµo nh÷ng chè thÝch hîp: Quèc tÞch cña QuÝ vÞ: ------------------------------ Tuæi t¸c cña QuÝ vÞ: D­íi 20 Trªn 20 Trªn 30 Trªn 40 Trªn 50 Giíi tÝnh cña QuÝ vÞ: Nam N÷ T×nh tr¹ng h«n nh©n cña QuÝ vÞ: §· cã gia ®×nh Ch­a cã gia ®×nh NghÒ nghiÖp cña QuÝ vÞ:................................ N¬i QuÝ vÞ sèng l©u nhÊt: Thµnh phè N«ng th«n Nh÷ng ngo¹i ng÷ mµ QuÝ vÞ biÕt: (Giái, kh¸, trung b×nh, yÕu) Theo QuÝ vÞ, cã nªn ®Ò cËp ®Õn nh÷ng ®Ò tµi sau trong lÇn ®Çu gÆp gì ®Ó cho an toµn kh«ng? Xin h·y ®¸nh dÊu (v) vµo mét trong nh÷ng cét sau: Cét 1 nghÜa lµ: rÊt nªn Cét 2 nªn Cét 3 còng ®­îc Cét 4 kh«ng nªn Cét 5 rÊt kh«ng nªn Thø tù §Ò tµi 1 2 3 4 5 1 Tuæi t¸c 2 T×nh tr¹ng h«n nh©n 3 Thu nhËp 4 NghÒ nghiÖp 5 Häc hµnh 6 Thêi tiÕt 7 Tin tøc 8 ThÓ thao 9 Cù«c sèng vËt chÊt 10 Gia ®×nh 11 T«n gi¸o 12 ChÝnh trÞ 13 §êi sèng t×nh dôc 14 Gi¸ c¶ nh÷ng vËt dông 15 ChuyÖn ng­êi kh¸c 16 ¢m nh¹c 17 Søc khoÎ 18 Thó c¶nh 19 N¬i b¹n sinh ra 20 N¬i b¹n c­ tró Khi lÇn ®Çu gÆp ®èi t¸c lµm ¨n t¹i v¨n phßng, QuÝ vÞ sÏ nãi/hái chuyÖn thÕ nµo víi anh Êy/chÞ Êy vÒ ®Ò tµi c«ng viÖc? a. Khi anh Êy/ chÞ Êy cã vÞ trÝ cao h¬n QuÝ vÞ? ........................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................... b. Khi anh Êy/ chÞ Êy cã vÞ trÝ ngang b»ng víi QuÝ vÞ? ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... c. Khi anh Êy/ chÞ Êy cã vÞ trÝ thÊp h¬n QuÝ vÞ? ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Khi lÇn ®Çu gÆp ng­êi hµng xãm míi trªn phè n¬i QuÝ vÞ sèng, QuÝ vÞ sÏ nãi/hái chuyÖn thÕ nµo víi anh Êy/chÞ Êy vÒ ®Ò tµi gia ®×nh? Khi anh Êy/chÞ Êy lín h¬n QuÝ vÞ 10 tuæi ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... b. Khi anh Êy/chÞ Êy b»ng tuæi QuÝ vÞ . ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... c. Khi anh Êy/chÞ Êy Ýt h¬n QuÝ vÞ 10 tuæi .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... IV. Khi lÇn ®Çu gÆp gì ng­êi b¹n míi quen t¹i mét b÷a tiÖc, QuÝ vÞ sÏ nãi/hái chuyÖn thÕ nµo víi anh Êy/chÞ Êy vÒ ®Ò tµi thÓ thao? Ng­êi ®ã la nam giíi ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... b. Ng­êi ®ã lµ n÷ giíi .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Xin ch©n thµnh c¶m ¬n sù gióp ®ì cña QuÝ vÞ!